Look at Van's Blather here.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Casey Wilson wrote:

Any chance there's a point to this drivel?

I found myself thinking the same thing

Herr Ludwig didn't make it clear that he is ranting AGAINST the choice
of the Lycoming for all RVs.

How hard would it be to mount a Continental to an RV? I'm no A&P but
how different could the mounts be for two engines of similar
architecture? Do Cont. engines use four-point mounts like Lycs?

Very different mounts. In addition, the 0-300 Continental is typically a
145 hp engine. Sure, it'll fly any of the 2 seat RV's, but *nobody* wants
less power than the other guy, who is probably flying behind a 160 or 180 hp
engine.

In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:


In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

And now there's an O-340 out there that puts out 190 hp. Oh the choices.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Kyle Boatright wrote:


In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are
a few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which
is 20 hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

And now there's an O-340 out there that puts out 190 hp. Oh the choices.

You're right, there are lots of choices. The O-340 as you mentioned, but
also the O-390 and O-400, which are enlarged O-360's. Presumably all three
of these engines will be relatively low volume. I'd be scared to death to
buy one because if the Lyclone manufacturer who produces the oddball engine
goes out of business, I don't think there will enough units in the field to
drive anyone to support the engines.

People with GO-300's, GO-470's, C-85's, O-290's and several other legacy
powerplants are having problems getting parts for their engines. Those
engines had much longer production runs than today's oddball lyclones are
likely to see.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.

There is an old Tony Bingelis article about the pros and cons (mostly
cons... weight, fuel flow) of bigger engines. Apparently a lot of RV
builders missed that memo... Or you could say it is a credit on the
basic design that it accepts increased power so well.

I think RVs are great airplanes although I don't want one for my own.
Apples and oranges thing I guess.

Jim Carriere wrote:



That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.

I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.

Jerry

Jerry Springer wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote:



That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.

I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.

Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or
am I misinformed?

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
Jerry Springer wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote:



That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.

I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.

Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or am
I misinformed?

The RV-4 and RV-6 were designed for the 150-180 hp O (and IO) 320's and
360's.. Of course, clever builders started installing the angle valve
IO-360, which is a 200 hp engine and is significantly heavier than the
intended engines. So Van's introduced the RV-7 and RV-8 which are intended
to use any of the 150-200 hp engines. Accordingly, clever builders are
installing IO-390's and IO-400's, boosting compression, etc., so once again
people are installing bigger, more powerful engines than Van intended.

I think that if Van offered a PT-6 option, someone would want to shoehorn in
the 15,000 hp Kuznetsov turbine liberated from a Tu-95 Bear bomber.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
Jerry Springer wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote:


That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.
I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.
Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or am
I misinformed?

The RV-4 and RV-6 were designed for the 150-180 hp O (and IO) 320's and
360's.. Of course, clever builders started installing the angle valve
IO-360, which is a 200 hp engine and is significantly heavier than the
intended engines. So Van's introduced the RV-7 and RV-8 which are intended
to use any of the 150-200 hp engines. Accordingly, clever builders are
installing IO-390's and IO-400's, boosting compression, etc., so once again
people are installing bigger, more powerful engines than Van intended.

Aaah, got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I think that if Van offered a PT-6 option, someone would want to shoehorn in
the 15,000 hp Kuznetsov turbine liberated from a Tu-95 Bear bomber.

Heheheh, but why stop at 15,000?

"Kyle Boatright" wrote

In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are
a
few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is
20
hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

I have a friend who was one of the few that chose the lower HP, then. He
built a fire breathing, race 4.3 liter Chevy RV-7, then got it done and
started almost immediately on a RV-9, which he put a 235 in.

He claims that he can go blasting around in the 235 HP Chevy when he wants
to go fast, and poke along in the O-235ci for trips, for next to nothing in
gas costs. The best of both worlds!
--
Jim in NC

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:
In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there
are a few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp,
which is 20 hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the
airplane.

I had contemplated an O-235 powered RV-9A. Here's the chain of reasoning
that I (and probably others inclined to lower horsepower) went through
before realizing it may be a less than optimum choice, even if one seeks to
lower operational expenses like avgas:

When I bought the RV info pack, I finally discovered why the specs on Van's
web site lists the gross weight (GW) range for the RV-9A from 1600 to 1750
pounds: the recommended gross weight increased with horsepower (a
dependency I could not find anywhere on Van's web site). At 118 HP,
recommended GW is 1600 lbs, at 135 HP it is 1675 lbs, and at 160 HP it is
1750 lbs. Now what is the actual structural limit?? Beats me - looks like
the GW goes as the cube root of the HP, so at 200 HP could I safely
increase the maximum GW to 1900 lbs? The designer recommended GW on _none_
of the other RV models changes with HP selection - only the 9 and 9A models
indicate a GW dependent on HP. If the lower max GWs are due to center-of-
gravity (CG) issues, or a takeoff performance issue, then it would be nice
to see that specifically stated somewhere.

Now with an 118 HP O-235 RV-9A @ 1600 lbs GW, Van's typical empty weight is
listed at 1028 lbs, leaving 572 lbs useful, or a miserly 356 lbs useful
with full fuel (36 gallons). So a couple who wish to travel cross-country
and wish to take any baggage at all immediately begins to cut into the fuel
- provided CG issues with that lighter engine up front doesn't limit their
baggage first. Lastly, the install cost difference between a Lycoming O-235
and a Lycoming O-320 does not appear to be terribly great. And if you want
to increase the still air MPG on the larger engine, you can just throttle
back and still get close to the same still air MPG at the same airspeed as
that provided by a smaller engine.

Given all the above, it doesn't seem hard to justify installing something
larger than an O-235 in an RV-9A.